RM Cluster Overcrowding?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

With over crowding and science on cart crap has already reduced RM to 56th percentile despite having IB in school. There are many schools with higher FARMs are rated higher. Making it 150% overcrowded is simply going to put near 25 percentile and property prices in RM will go down. There is reason that TB is still cheaper than Beall despite TB having more houses walk able to metro. School performance is a huge factor.

Please explain what "science on cart crap" is.

Science lab in cart. It's a bad situation.

Please speak to RM students. School not able to provide basic science lab is simply tragic and that's not unforeseen. This is what happens when you put 120 students in facility designed for 100 students and here we have our great council members trying to push it to 150 students to help developers.

Could you type this in better English and actually eplain what you are talking about?

Wow. You are truly unpleasant.

The area that feeds into RM is incredibly diverse with many people who speak a first language other than English. It is likely that PP’s first language is not English.

Well, I don't know what "science in cart" means. I assume they mean they're performing science experiments out of carts? They roll 20 carts from class to class in order to do chemistry? Or is this physics? Or biology? Are they dissecting cats on a cart? I have no idea what "science in cart" means.

[Anonymous]

How can you argue that more development is needed at RTC and at Twinbrook when there is SO much empty retail space in that area?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How can you argue that more development is needed at RTC and at Twinbrook when there is SO much empty retail space in that area?

Have you watched the council meeting? You want to stop a build-out that will take more than 20 years to do and will revitalize the run-down Twinbrook area over SEVERAL DECADES because the schools will be overcapacity in 5 years from now even though all those initial students will go to WJ and not to RM?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How can you argue that more development is needed at RTC and at Twinbrook when there is SO much empty retail space in that area?

The discussion is about housing. Retail space does not typically generate students for MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

‘Needed’ development? Who NEEDS the development? I disagree that it is needed. And would argue, that it is detrimental.

Federal Realty needs the money, I guess. They are the ones benefitting from the City of Rockville funded grants.

The increasing population of people who want to live near transit in Montgomery County and don't have $gazillions to spend on housing. For example, my parents and (in a few years) my kids. Maybe your parents and your kids, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Mark Pierzchala is not lobbying to build two buildings or asking for 15 extra seats in RM due to two buildings.

Mark Pierzchala is lobbying to have 1000+ extra kids in RM without having capacity in school. That's what is asking when lobbying for 150% capacity in RM.

Huge difference between these two situations. Please don't spread misinformation.

The capacity of RM is 2,236 students. 120% of capacity is 2,683 students. 150% of capacity is 3,354. 3,354 - 2,683 = 671 students.

Mark Pierzchala thinks that the limit for the City of Rockville to allow development plans should be raised from the projected enrollment 5 years out at Richard Montgomery HS being 2,683 to the projected enrollment being 3,354 - i.e., 671 more students than currently.

Note that this doesn't mean that the *actual* enrollment at Richard Montgomery would ever be 3,354. MCPS is building Crown HS (funding for the project starts in July 2019), and Richard Montgomery HS will be part of the rezoning.

Mark Pierzchala thinks that it's a perfectly all right to have 150% students in RM HS. That means he is lobbying for having 3354 kids in a facility designed for 2236 kids.



Increasing limit to 3,354 exactly means that Mark Pierzchala is perfectly fine to have 3354 students.


There is no confusion in that part and please don't confuse anyone. Everyone needs to vote out council members who don't care about education and only care about grocery stores and developers.

Crown doesn't have any start date right now. Constructions doesn't start in July 2019. Simply said, RM is not going to get any help in near future, but Mark Pierzchala is happy to make a crowded situation worse.

Why are you making things up? He literally said this wouldn’t happen.

I am not the PP, but this cracks me up. He doesn't think or need 150%, but he is lobbying for 150% limit. No one is getting fooled here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Mark Pierzchala is not lobbying to build two buildings or asking for 15 extra seats in RM due to two buildings.

Mark Pierzchala is lobbying to have 1000+ extra kids in RM without having capacity in school. That's what is asking when lobbying for 150% capacity in RM.

Huge difference between these two situations. Please don't spread misinformation.

The capacity of RM is 2,236 students. 120% of capacity is 2,683 students. 150% of capacity is 3,354. 3,354 - 2,683 = 671 students.

Mark Pierzchala thinks that the limit for the City of Rockville to allow development plans should be raised from the projected enrollment 5 years out at Richard Montgomery HS being 2,683 to the projected enrollment being 3,354 - i.e., 671 more students than currently.

Note that this doesn't mean that the *actual* enrollment at Richard Montgomery would ever be 3,354. MCPS is building Crown HS (funding for the project starts in July 2019), and Richard Montgomery HS will be part of the rezoning.

Mark Pierzchala thinks that it's a perfectly all right to have 150% students in RM HS. That means he is lobbying for having 3354 kids in a facility designed for 2236 kids.



Increasing limit to 3,354 exactly means that Mark Pierzchala is perfectly fine to have 3354 students.


There is no confusion in that part and please don't confuse anyone. Everyone needs to vote out council members who don't care about education and only care about grocery stores and developers.

Crown doesn't have any start date right now. Constructions doesn't start in July 2019. Simply said, RM is not going to get any help in near future, but Mark Pierzchala is happy to make a crowded situation worse.

Why are you making things up? He literally said this wouldn’t happen.

I am not the PP, but this cracks me up. He doesn't think or need 150%, but he is lobbying for 150% limit. No one is getting fooled here.

How will these two districts, one of which 80% will go to WJ, possibly bring RM to 150%? Would you be fine if he was increasing the two performance districts to 130%?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

With over crowding and science on cart crap has already reduced RM to 56th percentile despite having IB in school. There are many schools with higher FARMs are rated higher. Making it 150% overcrowded is simply going to put near 25 percentile and property prices in RM will go down. There is reason that TB is still cheaper than Beall despite TB having more houses walk able to metro. School performance is a huge factor.

Please explain what "science on cart crap" is.

Science lab in cart. It's a bad situation.

Please speak to RM students. School not able to provide basic science lab is simply tragic and that's not unforeseen. This is what happens when you put 120 students in facility designed for 100 students and here we have our great council members trying to push it to 150 students to help developers.

Could you type this in better English and actually eplain what you are talking about?

Wow. You are truly unpleasant.

The area that feeds into RM is incredibly diverse with many people who speak a first language other than English. It is likely that PP’s first language is not English.

Well, I don't know what "science in cart" means. I assume they mean they're performing science experiments out of carts? They roll 20 carts from class to class in order to do chemistry? Or is this physics? Or biology?

HS performing any aspect of science in cart due to over crowding is bad situation. It doesn't matter if it's biology, chemistry or physics.

It's not a recommended practice and not safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can you argue that more development is needed at RTC and at Twinbrook when there is SO much empty retail space in that area?

Have you watched the council meeting? You want to stop a build-out that will take more than 20 years to do and will revitalize the run-down Twinbrook area over SEVERAL DECADES because the schools will be overcapacity in 5 years from now even though all those initial students will go to WJ and not to RM?

Then why ask for 150%. Do you think citizens are dumb?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

With over crowding and science on cart crap has already reduced RM to 56th percentile despite having IB in school. There are many schools with higher FARMs are rated higher. Making it 150% overcrowded is simply going to put near 25 percentile and property prices in RM will go down. There is reason that TB is still cheaper than Beall despite TB having more houses walk able to metro. School performance is a huge factor.

Please explain what "science on cart crap" is.

Science lab in cart. It's a bad situation.

Please speak to RM students. School not able to provide basic science lab is simply tragic and that's not unforeseen. This is what happens when you put 120 students in facility designed for 100 students and here we have our great council members trying to push it to 150 students to help developers.

Could you type this in better English and actually eplain what you are talking about?

Wow. You are truly unpleasant.

The area that feeds into RM is incredibly diverse with many people who speak a first language other than English. It is likely that PP’s first language is not English.

Well, I don't know what "science in cart" means. I assume they mean they're performing science experiments out of carts? They roll 20 carts from class to class in order to do chemistry? Or is this physics? Or biology?

HS performing any aspect of science in cart due to over crowding is bad situation. It doesn't matter if it's biology, chemistry or physics.

It's not a recommended practice and not safe.

Why are you so reticent to actually explain what "science in cart" is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Mark Pierzchala is not lobbying to build two buildings or asking for 15 extra seats in RM due to two buildings.

Mark Pierzchala is lobbying to have 1000+ extra kids in RM without having capacity in school. That's what is asking when lobbying for 150% capacity in RM.

Huge difference between these two situations. Please don't spread misinformation.

The capacity of RM is 2,236 students. 120% of capacity is 2,683 students. 150% of capacity is 3,354. 3,354 - 2,683 = 671 students.

Mark Pierzchala thinks that the limit for the City of Rockville to allow development plans should be raised from the projected enrollment 5 years out at Richard Montgomery HS being 2,683 to the projected enrollment being 3,354 - i.e., 671 more students than currently.

Note that this doesn't mean that the *actual* enrollment at Richard Montgomery would ever be 3,354. MCPS is building Crown HS (funding for the project starts in July 2019), and Richard Montgomery HS will be part of the rezoning.

Mark Pierzchala thinks that it's a perfectly all right to have 150% students in RM HS. That means he is lobbying for having 3354 kids in a facility designed for 2236 kids.



Increasing limit to 3,354 exactly means that Mark Pierzchala is perfectly fine to have 3354 students.


There is no confusion in that part and please don't confuse anyone. Everyone needs to vote out council members who don't care about education and only care about grocery stores and developers.

Crown doesn't have any start date right now. Constructions doesn't start in July 2019. Simply said, RM is not going to get any help in near future, but Mark Pierzchala is happy to make a crowded situation worse.

Why are you making things up? He literally said this wouldn’t happen.

I am not the PP, but this cracks me up. He doesn't think or need 150%, but he is lobbying for 150% limit. No one is getting fooled here.

How will these two districts, one of which 80% will go to WJ, possibly bring RM to 150%? Would you be fine if he was increasing the two performance districts to 130%?

Developer listed less than 20 HS students due to his development and if that's what all this discussion is about then Council member should lobby for 121%.

Why anyone should agree to add extra 10%( 220 extra students) in already over crowded school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can you argue that more development is needed at RTC and at Twinbrook when there is SO much empty retail space in that area?

Have you watched the council meeting? You want to stop a build-out that will take more than 20 years to do and will revitalize the run-down Twinbrook area over SEVERAL DECADES because the schools will be overcapacity in 5 years from now even though all those initial students will go to WJ and not to RM?

Then why ask for 150%. Do you think citizens are dumb?

He probably just chose that number because that's what Gaithersburg is using. I don't know why he picked it. Would you be happy if he raised the two performance districts to 130%?

[Anonymous]

I would also like to know what "science in cart" is. Maybe some RM parents could explain?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can you argue that more development is needed at RTC and at Twinbrook when there is SO much empty retail space in that area?

Have you watched the council meeting? You want to stop a build-out that will take more than 20 years to do and will revitalize the run-down Twinbrook area over SEVERAL DECADES because the schools will be overcapacity in 5 years from now even though all those initial students will go to WJ and not to RM?

Then why ask for 150%. Do you think citizens are dumb?

He probably just chose that number because that's what Gaithersburg is using. I don't know why he picked it. Would you be happy if he raised the two performance districts to 130%?

Maybe he asked for 150% so that what actually happens is 130%...

(Does the City of Gaithersburg use 150%?)

[Anonymous]

City should go back to limit in 2015 and it was 110%.